H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, is a two-section bill of the 119th Congress that amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to add a Federal standard for electricity rates charged to large-load customers. This page summarizes the text as reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 10, 2026 (H. Rept. 119-814, Union Calendar No. 713), which is the text the House passed under suspension of the rules on September 16, 2026. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO-8) introduced the bill on June 18, 2026 "for himself and Ms. Castor of Florida." For the bill's legislative history, political context and reactions, see Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340).
Version and provenance
Congress.gov listed two text versions as of September 17, 2026, "Reported in House (09/10/2026)" and "Introduced in House (06/18/2026)"; no engrossed print had been posted after passage (Source: congress.gov). The reported text summarized here was re-fetched from that page on September 17 and matches the captured file.
The committee substitute changed one provision of the introduced bill. In the introduced text, subparagraph (C) defined a large-load customer only by size: a non-residential consumer contracting for "one or more facilities that have, in the aggregate, a peak electric demand of 100 megawatts or more at a single site or campus" (Source: congress.gov). The reported text adds a functional limb confining the class to facilities that use electricity primarily for information-technology infrastructure. The cost-recovery standard, the financial-assurance requirement and all of the conforming amendments are otherwise the same in both versions. E&E News described the substitute, released ahead of a markup that began on July 20, 2026, as narrowing the bill "to apply specifically to data centers" where previously it "could be applied to projects with a peak electricity demand of 100 megawatts or more" (Source: eenews.net).
A Senate bill with the same short title, S. 5028, was introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) on July 16, 2026 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Its text already carries the information-technology limb, and differs from the House reported text in arrangement rather than substance: the definition is subparagraph (A), cost recovery is (B) with the termination and cessation cases split into clauses (i) and (ii), and financial assurances are (C) (Source: congress.gov).
Structure
| Provision | Codification | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 1 | — | Short title, "Ratepayer Protection Act" |
| Sec. 2(a), new PURPA § 111(d)(22)(A) | 16 U.S.C. 2621(d) | Rates designed to recover the full incremental cost of generation, transmission or distribution upgrades, including on termination |
| Sec. 2(a), new § 111(d)(22)(B) | 16 U.S.C. 2621(d) | Financial assurances or contributions before any upgrade |
| Sec. 2(a), new § 111(d)(22)(C) | 16 U.S.C. 2621(d) | Definition of large-load customer |
| Sec. 2(b)(1)(A), new § 112(b)(9) | 16 U.S.C. 2622 | One-year deadline to commence consideration; two-year deadline to determine |
| Sec. 2(b)(1)(B), amended § 112(c) | 16 U.S.C. 2622 | Conforming references; enactment date of paragraph (22) substituted |
| Sec. 2(b)(1)(C), new § 112(i) | 16 U.S.C. 2622 | Exemption for prior state action |
| Sec. 2(b)(2), amended § 124 | 16 U.S.C. 2634 | Prior and pending proceedings; enactment date of paragraph (22) substituted |
Definition of large-load customer
New § 111(d)(22)(C) defines a large-load customer as "a non-residential electric consumer that, on or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, requests to enter into, or enters into, a contract or other agreement pertaining to the sale of electric energy for one or more facilities that" meet two conditions. The facilities must "(i) require electric energy primarily to operate information technology infrastructure and related systems pertaining to data storage and computational applications and services; and (ii) have, in the aggregate, a peak electric demand of 100 megawatts or more at a single site or campus."
The definition is functional and size-based. The operative text uses neither "artificial intelligence" nor "data center." A facility above 100 megawatts whose load is not AI-related falls inside it if its load is primarily information technology; an AI facility below 100 megawatts at a single site or campus falls outside it. Coverage attaches to contracts entered into, or requested, on or after enactment.
Secondary descriptions of the definition supply the words the text omits. The Congressional Research Service summary on congress.gov introduces "data centers" as a parenthetical example of the covered class. The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate describes a large-load customer as "a nonresidential electricity consumer that operates a data center with a peak demand for electricity of at least 100 megawatts at a single facility," which departs from the text on two points: the text reaches consumers contracting for information-technology load rather than operators of data centers, and it aggregates demand across a site or campus rather than a single facility (Source: cbo.gov). News coverage of the House vote described the bill as covering "artificial intelligence data centers" (Source: cnbc.com). The Energy and Commerce Committee's own release on the July 21 markup summarized the definition without the information-technology limb, as covering consumers "requesting electric energy for one or more facilities at a site or campus with peak demand of 100 megawatts or more" (Source: energycommerce.house.gov).
The ratemaking standard
Subparagraph (A) provides that "a rate charged, or entered into, by an electric utility for providing electric service to a large-load customer shall be designed to recover from the large-load customer the full, incremental cost of any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade necessary to serve the load of such large-load customer." The obligation extends to the case of the customer "terminating a contract or other agreement with the electric utility pertaining to the sale of electric energy, or otherwise ceasing the purchase of electric energy from the electric utility." The duty runs to rate design, and the termination clause assigns stranded-cost exposure from a cancelled or abandoned load to the customer.
Subparagraph (B) provides that "before making any generation, transmission, or distribution upgrade that is necessary to serve the load of a large-load customer, an electric utility shall require the large-load customer provide to the electric utility financial assurances or contributions to cover the cost of such upgrade." The text does not specify the form, amount or duration of the assurances.
Consider-and-determine obligations
The bill places the standard in PURPA § 111(d), the list of Federal standards that State regulatory authorities and nonregulated electric utilities must consider. It does not require adoption. New § 112(b)(9)(A) requires each State regulatory authority, with respect to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking authority, and each nonregulated electric utility to "commence consideration under section 111, or set a hearing date for consideration," within one year of enactment. New § 112(b)(9)(B) requires each to "complete the consideration and make the determination under section 111" within two years.
Under PURPA's structure the obligation is to hold the proceeding and reach a determination; a State may consider the standard and decline it. The CBO estimate states the same point in describing the mandate: the bill requires "state regulatory commissions to consider whether to adopt the federal standards," and "commissions may adopt or reject federal standards for ratemaking under current law" (Source: cbo.gov). Coverage of the bill has used both formulations, "standards that state regulators could adopt" and states that "could choose to adopt" (Source: cnbc.com).
New § 112(i), headed "Other prior state actions," removes the consideration requirement altogether for a utility in a State where, before enactment, (1) the State "has implemented for the electric utility the standard (or a comparable standard)"; (2) the State regulatory authority or the nonregulated utility "has conducted a proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard)"; or (3) "the State legislature has voted on the implementation of the standard (or a comparable standard)." The third limb refers to a legislative vote on implementation and does not condition the exemption on the vote's outcome. The text does not define "comparable standard." Committee Chair Brett Guthrie's release on passage states that the approach draws "on what 24 states are already doing" (Source: guthrie.house.gov), and Energy Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta said at markup that "numerous states already have large load tariffs in place for data centers, including Ohio" (Source: energycommerce.house.gov). How many States the exemption would reach is not stated in the text or in any document located.
The amendments to § 112(c) and § 124 substitute the date of enactment of paragraph (22) for the date of enactment of PURPA in those sections' references, so that the prior-and-pending-proceedings provisions run from the new standard's enactment.
What the text does not contain
- No reference to artificial intelligence or data centers.
- No reference to the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge or any executive commitment.
- No role for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, no new penalty and no new federal enforcement authority; compliance runs through PURPA's existing consider-and-determine machinery.
- No application to contracts entered into before enactment.
- No specification of the form of financial assurance and no definition of "comparable standard."
Budget and mandate effects
The CBO cost estimate, dated September 9, 2026 and prepared for the bill as ordered reported on July 21, 2026, projects no effect on direct spending, revenues or spending subject to appropriation over 2026–2036, on the ground that the bill "would not affect federal responsibilities." It finds an intergovernmental mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, because state commissions must consider the standard, with costs it estimates "would be small and well below the threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($107 million in 2026, adjusted annually for inflation)." It finds no private-sector mandate (Source: cbo.gov).
Passage
The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended, on September 16, 2026 at 6:53 p.m. by 417–3 on Roll Call 312, with no members voting present and 12 not voting. Republicans voted 210–0 with 7 not voting; Democrats 206–3 with 5 not voting; the one Independent voted yea. The three nays were Reps. Summer Lee (D-PA), Delia Ramirez (D-IL) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) (Source: clerk.house.gov). A motion to reconsider was laid on the table without objection. H. Rept. 119-814 is listed on congress.gov but its text had not been published there as of September 17, 2026.
Relationship to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge
The bill text does not mention the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge. The connection is asserted by the bill's proponents and by coverage. The Energy and Commerce Committee's June 18, 2026 release on introduction states that the bill "codifies the principles underpinning the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a commitment by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI to cover their own data center energy costs" (Source: energycommerce.house.gov). Evans's September 10, 2026 release states that the bill "builds on the principles of President Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge, under which major data center developers, utilities, and governors committed to covering the full energy and infrastructure costs associated with new data center development" (Source: gabeevans.house.gov). CNBC wrote that the bill "would codify parts of" the pledge, "which President Donald Trump released in March" (Source: cnbc.com). The text itself imposes no obligation directly on any company: the standard reaches a large-load customer's rates only where a State regulatory authority or nonregulated utility adopts it.
Reception
Critics from environmental groups characterized the consider-and-determine structure as the bill's limitation. Sara Chieffo of the League of Conservation Voters described it as "a weak directive to states to voluntarily consider adopting cost protections," under which "state regulators could ultimately choose to ignore this bill," and Mitch Jones of Food & Water Watch called it "pointless legislation that merely suggests states should act" (Source: cnbc.com). Evans described the same structure as "giving states the flexibility to determine what works best for their communities" (Source: guthrie.house.gov). Further reactions are collected at Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340).
Relationships
- instance-of: Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 9340) — the legislation page for the bill
- related: AI Data Centers — the cost-allocation question the standard addresses
- related: Energy and Electric Power Sector — utility ratemaking for large loads
- related: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — federal regulator whose jurisdiction the bill does not use; the standard operates through state ratemaking
- related: Behind-the-Meter Power for Data Centers — the Ratepayer Protection Pledge as a driver of self-supply
- related: New York Data-Center Moratorium (2026) — a state proceeding on large-load cost allocation of the kind new § 112(i) addresses
- related: Jon Husted — sponsor of the Senate companion, S. 5028